MOHINI RAWOOL-SULLIVAN, PAUL D. MOSKOWITZ, & LUDMILA SHELENKOVA Report Technical and Proliferation-Related Aspects of the Dismantlement of Russian Alfa-Class Nuclear Submarines MOHINI RAWOOL-SULLIVAN, PAUL D. MOSKOWITZ, & LUDMILA N. SHELENKOVA Mohini Rawool-Sullivan is a technical staff member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Her areas of expertise include assessing nuclear threats and building radiation sensors for the nonproliferation regime. Paul D. Moskowitz is the manager of the Environmental Threat Reduction Program in the Nonproliferation and National Security Department at Brookhaven National Laboratory. He has been working on Russia submarine decommissioning and dismantlement projects for the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1995. Dr. Ludmila N. Shelenkova is an assistant biophysicist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Nonproliferation and National Security Department. She develops, implements, and coordinates programs based on collaboration with Russian weapon scientists. etween 1950 and 1994, the Soviet Union built a to the Northern Fleet and one-third are assigned to the total of 245 nuclear submarines. At the end of Pacific Fleet. B1994, the newly formed Russian Federation (RF) Nuclear-powered submarines have provided the Soviet had the largest fleet of nuclear-powered submarines and and Russian navies with significant advantages over die- surface ships in the world. At that time, the Russian Fed- sel submarines. Nuclear submarines can stay submerged eration had a total of 140 active nuclear-powered vessels for months at a time and hence can patrol wide underwa- in its fleet. In addition to nuclear submarines, the nuclear ter areas without detection. Nuclear submarines also have fleet included four Kirov-class guided-missile cruisers, a higher speeds than their diesel counterparts, and provide small number of nuclear-powered scientific research, sup- better living conditions for their crews. Since 1952, four port, and space-tracking vessels, and seven civilian generations of nuclear submarines and several experimen- nuclear-powered icebreakers. According to the Bellona tal nuclear submarines have been built for the Soviet and Foundation, a Norwegian organization which monitors Russian navies. From 1955 to 1964 a total of 55 first- naval nuclear developments in Russia, the eighth Russian generation (November-, Hotel-, and Echo- class) subma- nuclear-powered icebreaker, 50th Anniversary of Victory, rines were built. At the height of the Cold War, 1 was fitted with two reactors in July 2001. After the break- approximately five to 10 nuclear submarines were being up of the Soviet Union in 1991, the financially strapped commissioned per year from each of the four Soviet sub- Russian Federation inherited the Soviet nuclear fleet. As marine yards: Sevmash in Severodvinsk; Admiralteyskiye a result, by 1996 only 109 nuclear submarines remained Verfi in St. Petersburg; Krasnoye Sormovo in Nizhniy in service. Two-thirds of these submarines are assigned Novgorod; and Amurskiy Zavod in Komsomolsk-na- The Nonproliferation Review/Spring 2002 161 MOHINI RAWOOL-SULLIVAN, PAUL D. MOSKOWITZ, & LUDMILA SHELENKOVA Amure (see Figure 1). Beginning in the 1980s, the Soviet problem which has received little attention. The Soviet Union launched several titanium-hulled submarines. The Union, unlike the United States, built nuclear submarines ill-fated Komsomolets (Mike-class), which sank with 42 powered not only by pressurized water reactors (PWRs), crewmembers aboard in 1989, had a titanium hull. Later, but also constructed submarines with liquid metal cooled two series of nuclear submarines were constructed with (LMC) reactors. Although only eight submarines (seven titanium hulls: the Project 705 (Alfa-class) and the Project Alfa-class and one prototype) were built with LMC reac- 945 (Sierra-class). These titanium-hulled nuclear subma- tors, this report analyzes the unique proliferation and safety rines are no longer in production. The Kursk, which sank issues the decommissioning of these submarines presents. on August 12, 2000, killing all of its crew, belonged to the The report begins by discussing the development of the Oscar II-class (third generation). Third generation Akula- Russian naval propulsion program, including the origins class attack submarines and Oscar-class cruise missile of the liquid metal cooled reactor program. It then dis- submarines, fourth generation Severodvinsk-class attack cusses the design, development, production, and opera- submarines (which carry anti-ship cruise missiles as well tion of the Alfa-class submarines that were powered by as torpedoes), and fifth generation Borey-class SSBNs are LMC reactors. The LMC reactor fuel cycle and its pro- still in production. However, severe funding problems have liferation and safety implications are also addressed. The slowed the pace of completion and commissioning of these article concludes with an examination of the unique chal- submarines. lenges posed by the dismantling of the LMC reactors re- While the proliferation challenges posed by the disman- moved from the Alfa-class submarines, and urges tling of Russian nuclear submarines have been addressed additional international assistance to help Russian address in a number of articles, there is one unique aspect of this these challenges. Figure 1: Locations of acilities involved in the Alfa-class/LMC reactor activities 162 The Nonproliferation Review/Spring 2002 MOHINI RAWOOL-SULLIVAN, PAUL D. MOSKOWITZ, & LUDMILA SHELENKOVA History of Russian Naval Reactors Russian Nuclear-Powered Submarines with LMC Table 1 shows Russian naval propulsion reactor design reactors models, their power, the uranium enrichment level of their Immediately following the successful launch of the first fuel, and the class of vessels built with these models. This Soviet nuclear-powered submarine, Project 645 was ini- table is based on data obtained from the NIS Nuclear Pro- tiated in 1957. The objective of this project was to build files Database of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies a 1,500-ton “interceptor” submarine that could get to a at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, except target location before the target information was obsolete. for the information on the number of reactors on Alfa- To meet this requirement, the submarine had to have un- class submarines.2 For many years, most Western refer- derwater speed of about 40 knots. The speed of a sub- ence material suggested that the Alfa-, Sierra-, and marine is largely a function of its wetted hull area and the Akula-class submarines were powered by two reactors. power of its engines. Thus, to obtain high speeds, a de- Recently obtained information, however, shows that these sign with a smaller volume hull and high-powered engines submarines were powered by just one reactor.3 is required. A. B. Petrov of the Malakhit Design Bureau Russian research into naval reactors began in the early (SKB-143) in Leningrad came up with an innovative de- 4 1950s. Veterans of these early programs take great pride sign for such a submarine. A LMC reactor design was in these efforts because of the originality of their programs, selected to provide high power using a compact reactor. which were not copied from U.S. or other designs. Two The LMC reactor shielding consisted of a single wall in- options were considered from the early stages of devel- side the submarine, although normally single-wall shield- opment. The first approach used a water-cooled, water- ing would be considered inadequate. The engine plant was moderated design (also known as a PWR) developed at completely automated and expected to run unmanned. The the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow under the leadership crew in this first design was expected to be 15 to 17 per- of A. Alexandrov. The second approach used a lead-bis- sonnel. The complexity of this design required that all muth cooled reactor design (also known as an LMC reac- crewmembers be officers. If this design were built with a tor) developed at the Institute of Physics and Power steel hull, however, the weight of the submarine would Engineering in Obninsk under the leadership of A. not allow it to meet the required performance specifica- Leipunsky. Over the next 40 years, the Soviet Union de- tions. This problem was resolved by using a titanium al- veloped and produced three generations of naval PWRs. loy hull. The use of titanium alloy allowed the hull walls Each generation featured improved reliability, compact- to be thinner and reduced overall weight. Around 1963, ness, and quietness. The first generation PWRs (VM-A after many delays, Petrov was dismissed from the project, type) were deployed from 1957 to 1968. All of these re- and under the direction of M. G. Rusanov, the design of actors are now retired. The second generation, VM-4 type reactors were deployed from 1968-1987. As of 1995, some of these reactors were still in use. The third generation Figure 2: Alfa-class submarine reactors (OK-650 type) entered service starting in 1987. Besides these reactor designs, several one-of-a-kind PWR designs were developed for research submarines and ves- sels. Despite certain advantages gained by using heavy metal- coolant in a submarine reactor, the LMC reactor design was ultimately abandoned in favor of the PWR designs. This decision was motived by safety considerations, main- tenance problems, accidents, and advances in PWR de- signs. The main difficulty with LMC reactors